Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[Hantlers]

Eh, I see them as 50/50 partners in creating this situation. Bundy could have done things differently but that holds true for the BLM as well.

But I see not point in arguing who is at fault foor this fiasco as that is now the minor story here. This is now about a group of people resisting what they view as a tyrannical gov.

Umm…if Bundy pays his fees, then they don't take his cattle, which means the BLM isn't there. That sure as hell ain't 50/50.

Where the BLM went wrong is how they took the cattle. No defense for how they did that.

 

[Stoked]

Umm…if Bundy pays his fees, then they don't take his cattle, which means the BLM isn't there. That sure as hell ain't 50/50.

Where the BLM went wrong is how they took the cattle. No defense for how they did that.

If BLM had done what it was created to do then we wouldn't be here either.

Not to mention the part you already concede.

Or how about the Homestead Act back int he 1800s that gave ownership to people for settlign the land? The Bundy family use of that land predates the BLM.

The government changed the purpose of the BLM after it was created.

This fight has changed into one of a runaway government and not one on who is at fault over some cattle.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm disappointed in Hantlers tbh. I would have suspected he, of most all people here, would see that just because some dudes (aka gov't) can make rules that are ******** that shouldn't necessarily be followed blindly. Whether Bundy is right or wrong is immaterial to me (I cannot have possibly said that any clearer, yet some of you guys can't grasp that), it's the fact that he 'thinks' he's right and how the feds have decided to show him their opinion differs.

If the feds would have come in, arrested him for monies owed, contempt of court, etc.. I wouldn't have ever made a single post on this subject.

So, someone, anyone.. understand what I am talking about... and it IS NOT about the Bundy's rights, per se.

 

[Stoked]

I'm disappointed in Hantlers tbh. I would have suspected he, of most all people here, would see that just because some dudes (aka gov't) can make rules that are ******** that shouldn't necessarily be followed blindly. Whether Bundy is right or wrong is immaterial to me (I cannot have possibly said that any clearer, yet some of you guys can't grasp that), it's the fact that he 'thinks' he's right and how the feds have decided to show him their opinion differs.

If the feds would have come in, arrested him for monies owed, contempt of court, etc.. I wouldn't have ever made a single post on this subject.

So, someone, anyone.. understand what I am talking about... and it IS NOT about the Bundy's rights, per se.

Oh I get it PKM. This is well beyond that now.

 

[babe]

Are you insinuating that I am anti-grazing? The fact is that claiming the right to graze on public land because your family has been doing it for decades does not entitle you to special rights. Everyone else is paying for the right to do this. Beside the fact of claiming that you or your family has been doing it for decades seems hypocritical considering the history of America.

I don't like driving 65 miles/hr through the desert of Nevada but that doesn't stop the gov't from monitoring my speed and pulling me over. I can debate that the speed should be changed or is stupid but until it is changed I either decide to follow the speed limit or decide to speed taking a chance I will be fined or arrested for doing so. I don't see this situation as losing your civil liberties because the Bundy's have no legal right to do what they are doing. The courts made a decision and now the gov't is enforcing the decision which is all legal per the constitution (police powers).

Sometimes the constitution sucks especially when it affects your life or the life of someone you know. I just don't see how paying the permit fees is more expensive than losing 50 + cows. To me, It only seems like certain Americans only love America when they get there way but when they don't get their way they start talking about their civil liberties being taken away. Sorry but I know there are many cases where people get screwed by the gov't but I don't see it in this case. Now if the Bundy's had some legal right to the land then I would be all for your cause. I haven't seen any evidence of that and just because they've been doing it for years doesn't give them legal right to federal land. The gov't whether it be the state, local or federal, will never allow people to just ignore the law when the courts have decided against a particular person because in doing so they make all court decisions invalid. Whether you like the decision or not, anything else is anarchy.

The whole reason for the court system is for We the people to be heard and hopefully find a solution or some justice. I know the system doesn't always work and there is corruption but for now it is the way it has been. I am all for fighting the system when you have a legitimate claim or complaint. However, in this story I don't see it. I think all this mess could have been avoided if the Bundy's just paid the permit fees like everyone else. I do not think they are entitled to anything more. I really don't see how the affects of grazing have anything to do with my argument. I am not against grazing.

No I didn't mean to "insinuate" or in any manner allege something wrong with you. I got it that you said, in the first place, that you're not against grazing per se.

If you drive 65 across the Nevada deserts you're probably going too slow. 75 is the speed limit generally on the flats. In Utah I was doing 85 on a very remote highway recently, and the sheriff clocked me. I surrendered peaceably. The poor man didn't want to give me the ticket. He asked for my registration, proof of insurance, and drivers license. . . . and my lead foot. Funny thing about my driving. I do sixty maybe sixty five most of the time, but once in a while when it's downhill with a tailwind I just don't notice my real speed. I drive by the seat of my pants. . . .

I had no intention of doing anything but admitting my guilt and paying the fine, but the sheriff just handed my stuff back and asked me if I'd just look at the speedoimeter instead of the scenery. I said "Yes, Sir", and I'll be feeling guilty for many moons to come whenever I forget to check my speed, and in fact I'll be checking my speed much more. . . .

I don't hate "law" per se, and I don't imagine anyone can just be unaccountable to authority.

Once in a while there is someone, perhaps a mini-Gandhi, who has a reason to disobey an unjust law. Until Bundy gets to the Supreme Court he hasn't exhausted his right to appeal any court decision. If Bundy can make his case in the public eye, he might be able to provoke Congress to apply some oversight to a Federal Agency that's supposed to be under our management.

If people want a better government they have every right to act peaceably to secure that kind of government. Or, if need be, people have the right fight for the rights they hold dearer than life. Government has no rights, but what we give it.

That's the American Way.

 

[Hantlers]

If BLM had done what it was created to do then we wouldn't be here either.

Not to mention the part you already concede.

Or how about the Homestead Act back int he 1800s that gave ownership to people for settlign the land? The Bundy family use of that land predates the BLM.

The government changed the purpose of the BLM after it was created.

This fight has changed into one of a runaway government and not one on who is at fault over some cattle.

We've been over the Homestead Act already. Keep up.

He may have used the land, but it's pretty damn obvious he never owned it.

All I need is a paper saying that he paid for it, or that he has any ownership in it. Clearly that has never been produced.

 

[Hantlers]

I'm disappointed in Hantlers tbh. I would have suspected he, of most all people here, would see that just because some dudes (aka gov't) can make rules that are ******** that shouldn't necessarily be followed blindly. Whether Bundy is right or wrong is immaterial to me (I cannot have possibly said that any clearer, yet some of you guys can't grasp that), it's the fact that he 'thinks' he's right and how the feds have decided to show him their opinion differs.

If the feds would have come in, arrested him for monies owed, contempt of court, etc.. I wouldn't have ever made a single post on this subject.

So, someone, anyone.. understand what I am talking about... and it IS NOT about the Bundy's rights, per se.

Some of us just understand how the government works. I've seen people deal with eminent domain, and how you deal with it is that you have no choice. Go ahead and try to argue it, you won't win, just lose money and time. Anybody that leases land knows that there is a chance they won't use that land the next year. If you don't plan accordingly, then that's your own damn fault.

Whether Bundy is right or wrong is important, because it plays the factor in why the BLM is there. If he thinks he's right, and he's wrong, then the BLM has the right to take his cattle.

Have I once said that I agreed with how the BLM went about this? Do try to pay attention old man.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm not convinced this is true. Their family goes back to 1887, pre BLM. They can make a homesteading plea under the homestead act of 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862



They've certainly improved the land, and they can prove that. And there has to be something filed with the county from back in the day declaring it Bundy property... right? It doesn't say how they have to file an application, or what form that application needs be in, just proof of their existence there.

I'm pretty sure(could be wrong) you had to fence the land to be able to claim it.

 

[Stoked]

We've been over the Homestead Act already. Keep up.

He may have used the land, but it's pretty damn obvious he never owned it.

All I need is a paper saying that he paid for it, or that he has any ownership in it. Clearly that has never been produced.

This is no longer about if he owns the land or not (besides for his fmaily). So who is the one who really needs to keep up?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Some of us just understand how the government works. I've seen people deal with eminent domain, and how you deal with it is that you have no choice. Go ahead and try to argue it, you won't win, just lose money and time. Anybody that leases land knows that there is a chance they won't use that land the next year. If you don't plan accordingly, then that's your own damn fault.

Whether Bundy is right or wrong is important, because it plays the factor in why the BLM is there. If he thinks he's right, and he's wrong, then the BLM has the right to take his cattle.

Have I once said that I agreed with how the BLM went about this? Do try to pay attention old man.

That's rich. You've completely ignored the crux of my issue with this and continue to debate the non-issue.

 

[Hantlers]

This is no longer about if he owns the land or not (besides for his fmaily). So who is the one who really needs to keep up?

You do realize you're the one who brought up the Homestead Act…right?

So if it's not about it, why bring it up?

 

[Stoked]

You do realize you're the one who brought up the Homestead Act…right?

So if it's not about it, why bring it up?

Because you won't shut up about it.

I've said multiple times, along with PKM, that the Bundy/BLM issue is no longer what this fight is about.